Before you go all Marx on me, yes yes I know about utopian socialism vs scientific socialism, but its ok to have fun once in a while.

This is what my ideal leftist government looks like.

  1. Unicameral legislature. No separate elections for executive. Ranked-choice voting.

  2. Executive is formed from the directly elected legislators through voting among legislators.

  3. 1:10,000 elector-electee ratio at the state level and 1:100,000 at the federal level.

  4. All state and federal reps can be recalled by an 80% no-confidence vote. This vote doesn't need to be initiated by the majority, you just go to your local govt office and submit a form of no-confidence, and once the threshold is reached, the elected rep is sacked.

  5. No head of state, either at state level or federal level. This means no President, no Governors, no Speakers etc.

  6. Anything in the constitution can be repealed, amended or added with simple 60% majority.

  7. No more national-level courts. State-level judges are appointed only for 5 year terms. Judges have zero power to nullify laws.

  8. The standing army is abolished and military duties are assigned to all adults.

  • Mardoniush [she/her]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think your judicial system is badly flawed, who tries federal law? What happens if state judges make a decision that conflicts with federal law? Does the person just appeal to the highest state courts, and then if the state decides wrong the federal government sends in the NKVD to bring the state to heel?

    In any case, in any system where you need most of these institutions, you'd need strong Vanguard guidance and control (either via a party or other institutions like a council of unions)

    • rightcom [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Judges have to, by law, make a decision that does not conflict federal law. That's what I meant by judges no longer having the power to nullify laws. If there is a conflict between state law and federal law, they have to follow federal law.

      The point is that decisions related to laws are only made by directly elected people, rather than the appointed judges.

      The Vanguard party would be, ideally, the communist party that is elected and has the majority in government, and therefore is the one who appoints the judges in the first place.

      • Mardoniush [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Ok but what happens if there's a conflict between federal and state law, and the state judge interprets it in a way that the federal legislature disagrees with. State judges, after all, have their first loyalty to the state (and the state may not have a communist party in control, or have a different tendency. Texas is Bukharinite, what do?)

        Honestly I'm against state/provincial governments anyway (and I'm more familiar with the much weaker states of the Australian system than the US one), I think Luxemburg has been proved correct on the national question in developed countries of the imperial core.

        Additionally, i understand you're trying to get around the issues the early SU had with indirect soviet level elections to state and federal bodies, but don't you think this system is a bit disconnected from the control of worker's councils (who will presumably make up the local government and economic level.)

        Finally as to the Head of State, since something has to fill HoS functions, are you presuming a de facto collective Head of State made up of a cabinet/privy council or a singular Prime Minister Head of State/Executive/Legislature combination